I've learned to accept that talent and success are not always connected.
There have been many talented people past and present who are not as successful as the people I see on the big screen or in the mass media.
It's unfortunate that you can follow the rules or break them, but if you don't get your big break, you could die penniless or at your desk working a day job or in your garden retired and somewhat satisfied that you appreciated your meagre handful of blessings.
Van Gogh definitely was talented but unsuccessful in the commercial sense.
There are probably at least a hundred artists out there like him today. People we know nothing about but are seriously talented and rule breaking.
I don't actually see much evidence showing us that following any rules will guarantee your big break either.
(As to the idea that selling is the other part of art, that's true to any idea of success, the concept of exchanging creative output for money.
There are a lot of talented people who do not make that transition easily. They are able to create but do not connect with a buyer out there. I wouldn't call this a rule but to be 'successful' there has to be an exchange of money for art. It can be a bitter pill for some artists to swallow. There is an integrity to some artists who don't like the idea that creativity is bartered for some arbitrary sum. And the value of the art, well that's a whole other discussion. There have been documentaries made about the gamification of art. The commoditisation of it. Turning a white canvas into a $100,000 installation by the sheer salesmanship of it. It's important to understand that art sold on the scale of $1m and above requires an abandonment for a moral compass. It becomes the property of speculative investment and magnet for powerful greed. This is the reason why some artists drop out of movie industry. They can't make sense of the millions of dollars required to sell a million dollar movie. So in essence Van Gogh has very little to do with the billion dollar machine we understand as show business today. If the disdain for 'success' drove Van Gogh to self isolation, he might have cut off more than his ear had he lived to the 21st century.)
This post was inspired by something written by a screenwriter today. He was unhappy that there were so many rules to screenwriting and wondered if Van Gogh would have been asked to hem himself in (if he were working today). I think this post is a long answer to say the short one; which is yes. Van Gogh would have been told to do what he was told or be taken off the job or contract. He would have been told to stop wasting so much oil paints. He would have also been forced to have a phone on him to he can be reached. He would have not fared better today. His fragile emotional health would have been crippled by our financially driven idea for commercial art. Van Gogh should not be a model of success to the contemporary artist wanting to be paid for their work.
